Scribd
Upload
64 views3 pages

Lawyers and Judges, Take Note: Francis Lim @inquirerdotnet

The Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales vs. GJH Land, Inc. that regional trial courts have general jurisdiction over intracorporate disputes, not just particular designated branches. If an intracorporate or commercial case is wrongly filed in or assigned to the regular branch of an RTC, it must be referred to the executive judge and either assigned to the special commercial court branch of that RTC or transferred to another RTC with a special commercial court branch. The case provides guidelines for correctly handling cases filed in the wrong court to determine the proper court and avoid future confusion.

Uploaded by

Sol Virtudazo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
64 views3 pages

Lawyers and Judges, Take Note: Francis Lim @inquirerdotnet

The Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales vs. GJH Land, Inc. that regional trial courts have general jurisdiction over intracorporate disputes, not just particular designated branches. If an intracorporate or commercial case is wrongly filed in or assigned to the regular branch of an RTC, it must be referred to the executive judge and either assigned to the special commercial court branch of that RTC or transferred to another RTC with a special commercial court branch. The case provides guidelines for correctly handling cases filed in the wrong court to determine the proper court and avoid future confusion.

Uploaded by

Sol Virtudazo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Lawyers and judges, take note

By: Francis Lim - @inquirerdotnet


Philippine Daily Inquirer / 12:20 AM June 09, 2016

What is the appropriate course of action if a case that should be filed or assigned or
raffled to a special commercial court is filed with, or assigned or raffled to, the wrong
court?

This question was the subject of a fairly recent case (Gonzales vs. GJH Land, Inc., G.R.
No. 202664, Nov. 20, 2015) decided by the Supreme Court’s (SC) en banc.

The case was mistakenly raffled to Branch 276, a regular branch of the Muntinlupa
RTC. Acting on respondents’ motion, Branch 276 dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction because it was an intracorporate dispute that should have been assigned to
the designated Special Commercial Court (Branch 256) of Muntinlupa.

The issue before the Supreme Court (SC) was whether or not the case must be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by Branch 276 of the RTC of Muntinlupa.

The SC said regional trial courts are courts of general jurisdiction because “[a]ll cases,
the jurisdiction over which is not specifically provided for by law to be within the
jurisdiction of any other court, fall under the jurisdiction of the regional trial court.”

The SC said jurisdiction over intracorporate disputes belongs to regional trial courts in
general and not to particular branches of said courts. In the words of the SC, “one must
be disabused of the notion that the transfer of jurisdiction was made only in favor of
particular RTC branches, and not to the RTCs in general.”

Guidelines

This case is of paramount importance. It resolves with finality the long standing debate
on whether it is the RTC in general or the particular branch designated as special
commercial court that was given jurisdiction over intracorporate cases.

The ruling also applies to other commercial cases, such as for rehabilitation, liquidation
in insolvency and intellectual property cases, that may have been filed with or raffled to
the wrong court.
For the guidance of the bench and the bar, this case provided guidelines not only for
intracorporate disputes but also for other commercial cases as follows:

1. If a commercial case filed before the proper RTC is wrongly raffled to its regular

branch, the proper courses of action are as follows:

1.1 If the RTC has only one branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, then the
case shall be referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case, and
thereafter, assigned to the sole special branch;

1.2 If the RTC has multiple branches designated as Special Commercial Courts, then
the case shall be referred to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case,
and thereafter, raffled off among those special branches; and

1.3 If the RTC has no internal branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, then
the case shall be referred to the nearest RTC with a designated Special Commercial
Court branch within the judicial region. Upon referral, the RTC to which the case was
referred to should re-docket the case as a commercial case, and then:

(a) If the said RTC has only one branch designated as a Special Commercial Court,
assign the case to the sole special branch; or

(b) if the said RTC has multiple branches designated as Special Commercial Courts,
raffle off the case among those special branches.

2. If an ordinary civil case filed before the proper RTC is wrongly raffled to its branch

designated as a Special Commercial Court, then the case shall be referred to the

Executive Judge for re-docketing as an ordinary civil case. Thereafter, it shall be

raffled off to all courts of the same RTC (including its designated special branches

which, by statute, are equally capable of exercising general jurisdiction same as

regular branches), as provided for under existing rules.


3. All transfer/raffle of cases is subject to the payment of the appropriate docket fees in

case of any difference. On the other hand, all docket fees already paid shall be duly

credited, and any excess, refunded.

4. Finally, to avert any future confusion, all initiatory pleadings must state the action’s

nature both in its caption and body. Otherwise, the initiatory pleading may, upon

motion or by order of the court motu proprio (on its own), be dismissed without

prejudice to its re-filing after due rectification. This last procedural rule is prospective

in application.

The author is a senior partner of the Angara Abello Concepcion & Regala Law Offices
or Accralaw and a law professor in the Ateneo Law School. The views in this column
are exclusively his and may not be attributed to any of the institutions with which he is
presently connected. He may be contacted at: [email protected].

Read more: https://business.inquirer.net/210918/lawyers-and-judges-take-note#ixzz5wMsiTwhI


Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

You might also like